REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 7414 OF 2018

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1118 of 2018) (D.No.27815 of 2018)

Haribhau            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This  appeal is filed  against the final judgment

and order dated 20.04.2018 passed by the High Court

of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench in Criminal

Appeal No.258 of 2006 whereby the High Court while

allowing the appeal with respect to other accused­

1

Babarao Shriram Chaudhary dismissed the appeal

with respect to the appellant herein and confirmed his

conviction and sentence awarded to him by order

dated 10.04.2006 passed by the 3rd Ad­hoc Additional

Sessions Judge,  Washim in Atrocities Case No.28 of

2005 by which the appellant and Babarao had been

convicted for the offences punishable under Sections

353, 294 and 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and

had directed them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

three  months  with fine of  Rs.500/­  under  Section

353/34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one month

with fine of Rs.200/­ under Section 504/34 IPC and

rigorous imprisonment for one  month with fine of

Rs.100/­ under Section 294/34 IPC.  All the sentences

were directed to run concurrently.

2

3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that Bala

Saheb Ingole (PW­1) was serving as a teacher in Zilla

Parishad  Primary  School  at Januna,  Tahsil  Karanja

District Washim (MH). On 05.04.2005, the appellant

(Haribhau) and Babarao, who were Sarpanch and

Member of the Gram Panchayat, Januna respectively

visited the School and asked Bala Saheb as to why he

came late in the School. Bala Saheb offered his

explanation.  

4. The explanation offered by  Bala  Saheb did  not

satisfy the appellant and Babarao, therefore, they

asked Bala Saheb for book of circle­in­charge

maintained by the School. Since Bala Saheb did not

give the book, the appellant (Haribhau) caught hold of

his shirt's collar and  while using abusive language

gave kicks and blows to him. They also gave threat to

Bala Saheb for causing injuries endangering his life.  

3

5. It  is  this  incident which gave rise to  lodging of

FIR which was followed by the prosecution of the

appellant  (Haribhau) and Babarao for commission of

offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 294

read  with  Section  34  of IPC  and in  addition  under

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes  (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,  1989

(hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).  

6. By order dated 10.04.2006, the Additional

Sessions Judge, Washim convicted the appellant and

Babarao for the  offences  punishable  under  Sections

353,  504 and 294 read with Section 34 of IPC and

awarded the sentences mentioned above. The

appellant and  Babarao  were,  however, acquitted for

commission of the offence punishable under Section 3

(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.

4

7.   The appellant and Babarao felt aggrieved by the

order of conviction and sentence and filed appeal

before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench. By

impugned order, the  High Court  allowed  the  appeal

with respect to Babarao and acquitted him of all the

charges leveled against him.  

8. So far as the appellant (Haribhau) is concerned,

his appeal was dismissed. In other words, the

appellant's conviction  and the sentence  awarded  by

the Additional Sessions Judge was upheld giving rise

to filing of this appeal by  way of special leave by

Haribhau in this Court.  

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Submission of learned counsel for the appellant

was essentially one. According to him, out of total jail

sentence awarded to the appellant, he has already

5

undergone one month actual jail  sentence and since

then he is on bail.  

11. It was his submission that having regard to the

nature of the offence committed by the appellant, his

age (60 years), his spotless career throughout without

any criminal antecedents and lastly, the fact that he

has already undergone one  month jail sentence in

relation to the offence committed 13 years back, hence

this Court while upholding the appellant’s conviction

may consider proper to alter the sentence awarded to

the appellant and reduce it  to the extent the period

already undergone in jail by him and instead impose

more fine on him to meet the ends of justice.

12. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent­State

urged for upholding of the impugned order.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force

6

in the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant.

14. In our considered opinion, firstly, taking into

account that the appellant has already undergone one

month’s  jail sentence out of three months awarded to

him, secondly, the fact that the incident in question is

quite old and seems to have occurred at the spur of

the  moment, thirdly, the appellant  has  no criminal

antecedent in his past life and lastly, he is not

required in any other criminal case except the one in

question which the appellant fairly did not deny

having committed   and rightly did not challenge his

conviction, it is  considered to be  just and proper to

alter the jail sentence awarded to the appellant from

three  months to the extent  of  period  of  one  month

which was already undergone by him and instead

7

enhance the total fine amount awarded under different

Sections from Rs.800/­ to Rs.15,000/­.

15. In  view of the foregoing  discussion, the  appeal

succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The jail

sentence awarded to the appellant by the Courts below

is altered and is accordingly reduced to the extent of

period of one month which already undergone by him.  

16. In other words, the appellant is now not required

to serve any  more jail sentence than  what he has

already undergone and at the same time the amount of

the total fine awarded by the Courts below is enhanced

from Rs.800/­ to Rs.15,000/­  for being paid to the

complainant­ Bala Saheb Ingole.  

17. Failure  to  deposit the  fine amount  within one

month would result in reviving the jail sentence

awarded by the Courts below and the appellant will

8

have to then undergo the remaining jail sentence

awarded by the Courts below.       

18. Let the amount of fine be deposited by the

appellant in  Trial  Court  within one month  from the

date of this order for being paid to the Complainant.

     ………...................................J.        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

                                         …...……..................................J.

                [UDAY UMESH LALIT] New Delhi; September 04, 2018  

9